The Unconcealed Truth About Carrying Guns

What the gun control lobby doesn't want you to know

"Experience is a dear teacher," said Benjamin Franklin, "but fools will learn at no other." Give some credit to fools: At least they eventually learn from experience. What would Franklin say about people who don't?

By that, I refer to gun control advocates alarmed that the Illinois legislature may vote to let licensed individuals carry concealed handguns. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence calls the measure "dangerous." Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center says that it would lead to Tucson-style mass shootings as well as the killing of police.

But concealed-carry, as it is known, is not a radical notion in most of the country. Thirty-seven "shall-issue" states grant permits to carry to anyone meeting certain requirements, and 48 allow citizens to carry guns under some circumstances. The two holdouts? Wisconsin, where Republican Gov. Scott Walker has endorsed the idea, and Illinois, where Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn has not.

But Quinn has vexed many downstate Democrats by abolishing capital punishment and allowing same-sex civil unions. So speculation is that he may have to make it up to them by going along on concealed weapons.

The opponents rely on a litany of horribles. The Violence Policy Center in Washington claims that since May 2007, individuals licensed to carry guns killed 286 private citizens and 11 law enforcement officers and committed 18 mass shootings. This gory record, it asserts, destroys the myth that permit holders are generally law-abiding folks who behave responsibly.

In fact, VPC's own data, when inspected closely, doesn't dent the case for gun rights. Over the past four years, there have been more than 60,000 homicides in the United States. The slayings carried out by permit holders amount to fewer than one of every 200 murders. For every licensee who killed someone, there are more than 20,000 who didn't.

Nor does the evidence indicate that allowing people to carry pistols causes crime. Many of the shootings done by permit holders took place in their homes—where you don't need a concealed-carry license to keep a gun.

Some of the killings weren't even done with firearms: Among the cases cited by the VPC is a 2008 strangling in Florida, allegedly by a man who was licensed to carry. How can strangulation be blamed on a concealed weapon permit? If a fisherman kills someone, do we ban fishing rods?

Often, notes Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck, the murders were premeditated or committed during the course of other serious crimes. In those cases, the license was irrelevant—unless you assume that someone willing to break the laws against murder or rape would not be willing to break another law by packing a sidearm.

What is extremely rare is a homicide committed by a permit holder in a public place in a fit of anger. Reviewing an earlier two-year database compiled by VPC, Kleck found only five cases "where possession of a carry permit may have contributed to the occurrence of the killing." Such episodes are not quite flying pigs, but almost.

What the gun control groups don't tabulate is how many homicides have been averted by a licensed, concealed handgun. Kleck, who has done extensive research on the topic, says it is "quite reasonable to expect that thousands of lives are saved by defensive gun use by persons who carried guns in public places." Even if he's wrong, it would take only a handful of such incidents to offset the homicides "caused" by concealed-carry laws.

The problem for opponents is that they have sown fear from the beginning, only to harvest a meager crop. A generation ago, few states allowed concealed-carry. When Florida captured national attention by legalizing it in 1987, critics forecast mass carnage. When other states followed suit, the same predictions were heard.

But they turned out to be false alarms. Instead of an epidemic of violence, the nation saw a drop. Since 1991, the murder rate has been cut nearly in half. You don't have to believe that "shall-issue" laws caused the decline to grasp that they certainly didn't get in the way.

The record of the past two decades demonstrates that you can strengthen the right of law-abiding adults to protect themselves against crime without making the world more dangerous. That knowledge is helpful in Illinois, to those willing to learn from experience.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    What is extremely rare is a homicide committed by a permit holder in a public place in a fit of anger. Reviewing an earlier two-year database compiled by VPC, Kleck found only five cases "where possession of a carry permit may have contributed to the occurrence of the killing."

    This makes no sense. You don't need a concealed carry permit to conceal a weapon and murder someone with it. The only difference concealed carry permits make is that it allows law abiding citizens to conceal carry. Lack of concealed carry permits makes no difference to a criminal.

  • Trespassers W||

    "In a fit of anger" is the operative phrase here. Carry means an otherwise law-abiding person now has an option to shoot someone in a fit of anger when they didn't before.

    I don't agree that this is an excuse to disarm me, obviously.

  • .||

    ...means an otherwise law-abiding person now has an option to shoot someone in a fit of anger when they didn't before.

    The same is true of a cop, but a cop will probably get away with it.

  • Suki||

    +1

  • ||

    It is more than enough reason to disarm you; we cannot just trust that you do not have a severe temper.

    The comment below addresses the same issue in the case of a police officer. What the poster didn't address is that rules are different fur us in government. We are granted specific exemptions and immunities that apply to you by both culture and law.

    i.e. You recently elected a man who helped create a law that will soon force every American to become a customer of the Medical Insurance industry, or carry a government health insurance plan. Judging by the lack of resistance from you, you have no problem with us fining and imprisoning you for not purchasing services as we direct.
    Imagine if a satellite television provider tried this. Imagine if they fined, and, in severe cases kidnapped and placed in their private jail persons who refused to sign up for their service. You people would consider this a very serious crime, but when we do the same you don’t give it a second thought.

    http://youareproperty.blogspot.....ality.html

  • Suki||

    Good morning and all that, reason.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    And what HGCI doesn't realize or will not acknowledge is that there are all kinda people illegally carrying concealed weapons all around them every day without incident.

    As my truck drivin' buddy once said: course I got a permit for this, it's called the second amendment.

  • Eve Entuality||

    course I got a permit for this, it's called the second amendment.

    And "better to be judged by twelve than carried by six".

    Just wondering, how do these arguments hold up in court?

  • robc||

    Im sure the latter is basically a statement of "fuck the courts" which I imagine holds up poorly.

    However, a big ass fine and probation is better than death. Because if you use an unlicensed concealed weapon in a situation in which you would otherwise be murdered, that is the worst thing any court is gonna do to you.

  • Great Britain||

    Right.

  • robc||

    That is why I dont travel to anywhere without sensible juries.

  • ||

    And those are a lot harder to carry concealed!

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    I wouldn't be so sure about that. Bernhard Goetz got 6 months in prison for possession of an illegal firearm because the prosecution told the jury that if he had committed a crime according to the letter of the law, they must find him guilty even if they agreed with his actions. Then he went bankrupt defending himself from a lawsuit brought by one of the thugs who tried to rob him.

  • ||

    Thats why when you shoot you make damn sure there dead

  • ||

    Indeed. I've taken a couple of concealed carry classes, and the doctrine is clear:

    (1) Don't pull your weapon unless you intend to kill somebody right then and there. Essentially, you draw and shoot with no breaks for anything but taking aim.

    (2) Don't stop shooting until they are dead.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    (2) Don't stop shooting until they are dead.

    Although I know what you're getting at there, I unfortunately have to disagree with this advice. If you've shot the guy, and he's down on the ground, you would not be justified in standing over him and firing a couple more rounds into his head to finish him off.

    In order for a self-defense shooting to be justified, you generally may use only that force necessary to prevent serious physical injury or death. Once there no longer is the imminent threat of serious physical injury or death - e.g., you've shot the dude and he is totally incapacitated - you are no longer justified in continuing to use deadly force.

    The whole notion of "shoot to wound" or "shoot to kill" is TV nonsense. You shoot to stop the threat presented. Once the threat is no longer present, you stop.

    I would submit that in just about every jurisdiction - even Texas and Oklahoma - if you shot the guy and then walked over and finished him off with a couple more gratuitous shots just to make sure he's dead, you'd be charged with murder for those last shots, even though the first couple might have been fully justified.

  • ||

    "In order for a self-defense shooting to be justified, you generally may use only that force necessary to prevent serious physical injury or death"

    It depends on the state. Most "gun friendly" states have defined the circumstances and situations may be used. The most common example would be someone breaking into your home. The intruder illegally entering your home creates the conditions in which deadly force can be justified. Any nuance becomes irrelevant, because the intruder created the circumstances resulting in his or her death, not the home owner.

    These same states tend to have laws providing a shooter immunity from prosecution if the circumstances allow the use of deadly force.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    The intruder illegally entering your home creates the conditions in which deadly force can be justified. Any nuance becomes irrelevant,

    I'm afraid that this simply is not true. I'd like to see the statutes and court cases interpreting those statutes that supports your proposition.

    The fact that someone has broken into your house does not, in and of itself, automatically mean you can then legally kill him.

    And the "nuances" are indeed what the prosecuting attorney will consider in determining whether to press charges. Each case depends on the facts and circumstances of the specific case. I never would advise someone that as long as someone in "illegally entering" your house, you can blast away with impunity - because that simply is not a true statement of law, at least in the majority of jurisdictions.

  • ||

    One of the nuances I like to consider is, "Am I white? And is the other guy black?" If yes to both, then no jury will convict me if I blast away.

  • ||

    I understand you aren't wearing clothes, but does a thick coating of crap have the same effect?

  • ||

    "The fact that someone has broken into your house does not, in and of itself, automatically mean you can then legally kill him."

    In TX, it means exactly that. Not only that, but if he's breaking into your neighbor's house, you can do the same thing.

  • Miguel||

    "It depends on the state." Unfortunately, it does not. You shoot till the threat is over. If shoot a criminal and he drops the gun and surrenders, the threat has ceased. If you keep shooting, you are now guilty of murder.
    And before you say something else, there are never witnesses until they show up in court at your trial.

  • Matrix||

    In order for a self-defense shooting to be justified, you generally may use only that force necessary to prevent serious physical injury or death. Once there no longer is the imminent threat of serious physical injury or death - e.g., you've shot the dude and he is totally incapacitated - you are no longer justified in continuing to use deadly force.

    Good luck using that logic with Jason Vorhees or Michael Myers! They will kill you after being down for a few moments!

  • ||

    +1 shoot to stop the threat.

  • ||

    That is what Jared Loughner did. Made sure there were innocent corpses at the feet of armed citizens who could do nothing to stop him with their concealed firearms.

  • Attila the Huh||

    Huh?

  • some guy||

    Then their family sues you for wrongful death. Face it, our legal system is designed to screw anyone who enters it, regardless of how they got there.

  • ||

    It is irrelevant whether they die. The goal is to STOP the attack and that usually means multiple hits to vital areas, which in turn means a high probability of death. It also means continuing to shoot until your attacker can no longer harm you.

  • JD||

    That's why you push for good laws regarding use of self defense. In many states, if you are legally justified in the use of deadly force you have civil immunity.

  • ||

    Exactly. I refuse to live in any state that does not have a strong "stand your ground" clause.

  • Matrix||

    how about forbidding lawsuits brought by people injured in commission of a crime (ie, a burgler breaking into someone's house and getting injured in the process, even if the resident was defending his/her home; a mugger getting his jaw broken when a victim fights back; a high speed chase, and the one fleeing gets hurt in a collision caused by the police or even a citizen trying to stop the perp). Of course, there has to be some exemptions, such as police brutality and excessive force.

  • Jame J. B.||

    Ok - when is it a crime? Burglary may be easy - but what of assault - what if I say you hit me first I defended myself and then broke your jaw and you say I was the aggressor.

    Let the jury try the case. A jury is always better than those idiots in the state and fereal captiols.

  • Jame J. B.||

    federal. Though the feral government may be funny.

  • Matrix||

    Juries often fall on the side of giving the victim rewards. There are cases where criminals, in commission of a crime, were hurt and successfully sued home owners and other victims.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Juries often fall on the side of giving the victim rewards. There are cases where criminals, in commission of a crime, were hurt and successfully sued home owners and other victims.


    What were the underlying facts?

    Were those criminals hurt by an indiscriminate hazard?

  • ||

    As my cop friends tell me, 'dead men tell no tales'. Shoot to kill.

  • robc||

    That is why I dont travel to anywhere without sensible juries.

  • ||

    I'm a criminal trial lawyer. Will you please answer this post and let me know what system you use to pick places with sensible juries?

  • ||

    6 months inside, or 6 feet underground? Take your pick.

  • Boss Tweed||

    Probably most damaging to Goetz's claim of acting in self-defense was his statement that he had said "You don't look so bad, here's another" before firing at Cabey a second time.

    Cabey was only shot once, but there were a lot of reports that portrayed Goetz as standing over a helpless, wounded man and shooting him again.

    If he had done that, it would be hard to call self-defense.

  • JD the elder||

    I dunno. New York City, one of the worst places in the US for gun owners, can do damn near anything to you. Check out this article, written by a NYC attorney:
    http://www.queensdefense.com/guns.htm

    He points out something I didn't even know - if an unlawful gun is found in a house or vehicle, under NYS law, EVERY SINGLE PERSON THERE CAN BE CONSIDERED GUILTY OF POSSESSING IT. That's right, fifteen people can simultaneously be guilty of possessing a single weapon. Given stuff like that, I have absolutely no faith in the city and state to not screw over gun owners absolutely as hard as possible.

  • ||

    That type of possession isn't only used in NY, but more often used in drug cases else where.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    not well, but still......

  • ||

    better to be judged by twelve than carried by six

    Except you're far more likely to be judged by twelve as a result of carrying a firearm illegally than you are to be carried by six for not doing so; thus the expected value of illegally carrying may still be negative.

  • ||

    Yep. CCWPs are just another way for da gubmint to know who is and who isn't - and who to come for...

  • LarryA||

    Given the number of gun owners in the U.S., the government is going to have to "come for" just about everyone. Lists are irrelevant.

    You can't even count on gun control advocates not being armed.

  • AuricTech||

  • Matrix||

    I'd love to see what happens when they try to get the guns from some of my relatives. Those punk feds would have a few extra holes in them.

  • Trespassers W||

    course I got a permit for this, it's called the second amendment

    Cute, but gives too much credit to the State. The 2nd amendment doesn't grant me a right to bear arms; I already have one.

  • ||

    Quite right; the Second Amendment only prohibits lawmakers from making laws that restrict that right: "...the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

  • ||

    And that worked out really well....no laws that I can think of off the top of my head that "restrict" the 2nd amendment...except for Chicago, and DC...and NYC... and all of California...and most of New England...

  • ||

    But if people can own and carry guns legally, the ATF would no longer be able create a black market for stolen guns.

    http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2.....f-thieves/

  • J[o]hnny L[o]ngt[o]rs[o]||

    I had that one in the queue for the morning links.

    ...Think about this. A store opens up in a bad part of Phoenix for the express purpose of purchasing stolen weapons (for the ATF) and drugs (for the other agencies). The store lets it be known that they’re open for [criminal] business and spreads a ton of cash around. No one gets arrested. And so their “success” snowballs over nine months. The bad guys know there’s a thriving market for stolen guns. So what do they do? Steal guns.

    Now look at this from an Arizona gun owner’s point of view. You’re sitting in your house with a nice collection of guns. Suddenly, bad shit goes down. A group of very bad people (with a nice new income stream to keep them ungainfully employed) have decided that they want your guns. And by God they’re going to take them. Why? So they can sell them to the federal government....

  • J[o]hnny L[o]ngt[o]rs[o]||

    Am I allowed to point out that the govt paying crooks to steal guns from law abiding citizens just so happens to mesh nicely w/ the govt's goal of "gun control" - i.e. disarming law abiding citizens?

  • Eric Holder||

    For the time being.

  • WTF||

    It just doesn't seem to phase these gun control nuts that prior to every state liberalizing their concealed carry policies, they warned about blood in the streets and shootings over fender benders, yet not once has it actually happened. And despite the fact they have been wrong on this every time, they persist in making such warnings as though they have no memory. Are they really that dishonest, or just stupid and deluded?

  • Otto ||

    If they acknowledge that there won't be mass shootings, they have no argument. That should go a ways to answering your question...

  • mofo||

    They try that fear-mongering shit because thats all they have.

  • robc||

    Never ascribe to incompetence that which is adequately explainced by malice.

  • DK||

    This seems to be a common sentiment amongst libertarians, at least on this site. However, it's extremely problematic. We can talk about the non-aggression principle and all these axiomatic formulations of libertarian principles all we want. But at the end of the day, any ethical system has to answer the question - "what should I do?" And that means that the ethical system can't be formed in a vacuum - it must take reality into account, in this case the basic dynamics of human behavior. If a basic premise is that about half of the people in the country (those who support gun control laws) are malicious, how can you possibly espouse libertarian principles? I can only see libertarianism as a normative ethics working when one holds the view that people are basically good.

  • DK||

    Maybe if we stopped demonizing our ideological opponents and actually attempted to understand their motivations, we'd get somewhere. Blindly attacking and accusing people of malice is just absurd and doesn't win anyone over to your way of thinking. Attempting to understand one's perspective, however flawed, and allow them to see the way to your truth is far more interesting anyway.

  • ||

    There is no doubt honest disagreement among people of goodwill with respect to many contentious issues, but there are also those who have an agenda that boils down promoting strife, obfuscation, exploiting and harming others, profiting at the expense of others, denying others their human rights and so on. Just as important as engaging other who disagree with us constructively is to recognize that there are many whose views amount to sociopathology. Treating the views of these people as merely honest disagreement among people of good will is wrong.

    Part of the agenda of many of those advocating more "civil" discourse isto afford cover to those with pathological agendas. I do not think that those who advocate illiberal (in original, authentic meaning of the word "liberal", as in "classical liberal") positions deserve thoughtful consideration and should be demonized. I realize there are those who do not fully understand the implications of their illiberal views and those people deserve consideration, but there are plenty of other who seek to impose their pathology on others and/or seek to create discord and strife and the only appropriate response from decent, thinking people is demonization.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    If a basic premise is that about half of the people in the country are malicious, how can you possibly espouse libertarian principles?

    We can cooperate better than them because we are self organizing and they aren't? But we need to be able to identify each other for said cooperation to take place? Just a stab in the dark.

  • oncogenesis||

    libertarianism as a normative ethics

    Category error.

  • ||

    "I can only see libertarianism as a normative ethics working when one holds the view that people are basically good." This is exactly incorrect in my view. It is because people are fallible that libertarians oppose giving them legal authority over others. I do hold, however, that people are by and large "good" - inclined to co-operate and take care of each other. We would have expired as a species long ago if the were not the case. Libertarianism is the only political philosophy which takes into account actual human nature - both its good and bad aspects.

  • omg||

    I can only see libertarianism as a normative ethics working when one holds the view that people are basically good.

    If you think that more then half the people in this country are malicious, you definitely have to be against the government. Certainly you would have to be against democracy; as malicious people will elect malicious politicians into office.

    Even if only a minority of individuals were malicious, you still can't have a government as the malicious minority would be attracted to the government (having zero accountability for your actions makes it nice).

    The only way a government could work would be if everyone was good. But if everyone was good, no government would be needed.

  • Resto Druid FTW||

    Is "All the Above" a correct answer?

  • i give up (formerly some guy)||

    The world is full of idealogues, who don't care about logic or morality. All they care about is inflicting their idealogy on everyone else. That's why I've decided to give up. I'm moving to Mars. No one is welcome to join me.

  • DLM||

    I'm moving to Mars.

    You might want to reconsider. I hear you can't get a good internet connection there.

  • mediageek||

    "Are they really that dishonest, or just stupid and deluded?"

    Yes.

  • Hobie hanson||

    Ever heard of Hurricane Katrina.

  • a penny a day keep Obama away||

    "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

    H.L. Mencken

  • Mr Whipple©®™||

    It's a good thing that speech doesn't kill.

    Hey, you got a permit to say those things?

  • Eve Entuality||

    Many people are carrying concealed thoughts.

  • asdf||

    Shit I need to arm myself with a few.

  • golddot124gr||

    Hitler killed at least 11 million people in only a few years using speeches to persuade others. Maybe we should get permits for speech?

  • ||

    wow i didnt realize this many guys suffered from small penises & ED to overcompensate like this.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    You should know them, Orinn, they're part of your weekly support group.

  • tarran||

    You're so cute when you're sexist.

  • Almanian||

    You bring a consistent level of stupid. Today we get the bonus of your projection.

  • ||

    Wrong pistol, no wonder your affraid of guns. we are talking about a 6 shooter Not a 6" shooter

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Ha! hehehe... oh, that old meme. Yeah, yeah, we know... heard it countless times. If a guy drives a Corvette or a Porsche, he must have a small dick. If a guy drives a big pickup truck, he must have a small dick. If a guy buys a big or fast boat, he must have a small dick. If a guy buys a big house, he must have a small dick. If a guy buys a gun, he must have a small dick. If a guy smokes cigars, he must have a small dick.

    You're awfully penis-centric, there OO.

    You're also awfully full of shit.

  • ||

    It's always perpetuated by women or guys with small, slow cars, no guns, no boat, small house, thinks cigars are icky....

    Reality is, most guys like things that kickass is some way. Then there are male feminists who believe whatever they are allowed to believe because they are pussies who can only get some by being some chick's bitch.

  • ||

    Please allow me to express my deep admiration of the sexual appendage you are evidently able to deploy for self-defense in place of a gun. You must be very proud. I am certain every lady you know feels safer in your presence than with nearly any other man.

    I admit that my own, personal peniis is pitifully inadequate for self-defense purposes.

    It appears that you would prefer that women should be left defenseless, since they are anatomically unsuited for it. Plus, it makes them so much easier for you to subdue.

    It’s also apparently a true belief of yours that the elderly and handicapped, regardless of size, do not deserve the right to self-defense, since their wang-fu will likely be inadequate for a variety of reasons. You obviously think that we don’t need such human rubbish, anyway.

    I admit, I’ve always found it disturbing that the police and military, being unable to find recruits of your mighty dimensions, instead must brand them as the puny weaklings they are by issuing handguns and rifles.

    Congratulations to you again, and I am sure we will hear more of your exploits as you defend your self, your family, your neighbors, and your nation with your wee-wee..

    I implore you to post the resulting news pictures.

  • Just another observer||

    +1 absolutely brilliant.

  • wayne||

    +10

    Very, very good!

  • Otto||

    I nominate one Interwebs to jack burton.

  • RM||

    You forgot the most important question: does he have an open carry permit?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Guns

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    are

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    yucky!

  • Rich||

    My usual response to this sentiment (when expressed seriously) is "If you don't like guns, then don't own one."

    You may find this amusing.

  • Fat Crack Ho||

    Looks like a Springfield Armory GI .45 to me. I bought one a few years ago, couldn't fire more than 10 rounds at a time without a stoppage of some sort, usually a FTE. Finally sold it. I've never been able to find a 1911 that shot right for me.

  • Just another observer||

    Wilson combat.

    On a side note the Springfield armory is contemplating releasing a Wisconsin commemorative edition 1911 Government Union model. It can not be fired and never works.

    If you have trouble with ammo feeding try several different manufacturers. My Glock model 21 will not feed cci ammo at all, to much expansion from the aluminium case causes FTE, but Winchester and Remington ball or defensive rounds feed just fine.

  • DVC||

    This is usually an indication of weak-wristing when you shoot. The Springfield 1911 is so reliable that it was the basis for the Gunsite Service Pistol, the daddy of the "practical" pistols on the market today. However, the 1911 has a large recoil spring, and needs a firm grip when you shoot.

  • Warty||

    I can't wait to go to Illinois and conceal my machete crossbow.

  • Rich||

    Yet *another* reason to censor the intertoobs.

  • ||

    I didn't know that you were from Germany.

  • Almanian||

    Austria, I believe. You know who else was from Austria....

    PS Machetes - WHAT A GOOD IDEA! Fucking AWESOME.

  • ||

    I think that it may have worked better if instead of lifting the machete over the block allowing it to fly the block was quickly lowered.

    Warty's not Austrian, he's a small Chinese girl that Reason pays keeps locked in the basement to keep the comment numbers up.

  • Warty||

    Bullshit. I am a all Germans as I am one German, and therefore I am God. I await the Senate's unanimous decision.

  • Juvenile Lurker||

    Q: Have you ever had German-Chinese food?

    A; Half an hour after you eat it, you're hungry .... for POWER.

  • Almanian||

    +6million, give or take...

  • ||

    If I were a small Chinese girl locked in a basement with Gillespie nervously dry firing a gun screaming, "POST! POST NOW BITCH!",while Matt Welch takes time off of doing enormous lines of Koch to practice swinging his coal shovel, that is just the kind of comment I would make.

  • Almanian||

    What capitol said...

  • Karl Childers ||

    Some folks call it a sling blade, I call it a kaiser blade, nmh hhmmm.

  • Neu Mejican||

    PS Machetes - WHAT A GOOD IDEA! Fucking AWESOME.

    Silliest weapon ever. It accurately throws a machete about 4 feet...with enough force to pierce cardboard. I am thinking a spear is better technology.

  • ||

    "I am thinking a spear is better technology."

    Or a Cold Steel two handed katana machete.

  • ||

    Cops dont stop crime they investigate. which would you want if someone trys to kill you

  • Almanian||

    Cops don't kill people, peop...oh, wait...

  • ||

    The Political Left has been baffled by and afraid of the rank and file of American Citizens since they turned away from the Progressive Vision (orderly, constrained, and slightly tweedy) to pursue Levittown and tail-fins in the Post War era. Over the decades they have communicated their profound unease to a wide range of political factions. The notion that common citizens are smart enough to choose their own food, drive their own cars, and own guns is anathema to certain types of Political thinkers, who haven't emerged into the 18th Century, much less the 21st. Sadly, this conviction that the Common Man is a dolt who must be looked after by his betters, and who certainly shouldn't be permitted to do anything DANGEROUS, will probably live forever despite its miserable track record.

  • Apogee||

    ...this conviction that the Common Man is a dolt who must be looked after by his betters, and who certainly shouldn't be permitted to do anything DANGEROUS, will probably live forever despite its miserable track record.

    I don't think the track record has anything to do with it.

    You leave out a very important piece of the equation - namely that is also happens to be quite profitable to occupy the position of said 'betters', and it is that happy coincidence that produces the longevity, not a failure to examine track records.

    The big political stink right now involves the removal of automatic profits, not the feigned 'attack' on some sort of ideological position. (Which our current battle state has revealed to be strikingly ethereal) That's for the rubes who support but fail to demand a piece of the cut.

  • ||

    Personally, I think EVERY American should be armed ALL of the time!

    www.privacy-resources.ie.tc

  • Resto Druid FTW||

    Name that song: I like guns, and guns like me, I like guns, they made America free...

    No goddamn interwebz searches either.
    Hint: Think late eighties punk.

  • Dr. Doofenschmirtz||

    Minor Threat?

  • Resto Druid FTW||

    D.I.

  • Scarcity||

    As most of you know, here in Chicago handguns are no longer banned. You just have to pay a registration fee and an annual fee, take a day-long safety class, do 30 (?) hours of range shooting at one of Chicago's non-existent ranges, and get on a registry accessible by CPD.

    If I decide to carry my "hypothetical" handgun, I'll be damned if I'm going to get a CCP in Illinois.

  • Trespassers W||

    It's not really that bad. It's a FOUR hour safety class and ONE hour of range shooting.

    And then you take half a day off work to go down to the single PD where you can apply for a license.

    And then you can register one weapon a month, which I believe is possible by mail.

    And then you file annual reports.

    And then the AG will probably publicize your name, address and gun collection.

    On second thought, it is that bad.

  • Gun Banner||

    If a fisherman kills someone, do we ban fishing rods?

    YES!!!11!! OF COURSE!!! FOR THE CHILDREN!!!11!!ONEZOMGWTF

  • ||

    If the fisherman used his fishing rod to bludgeon a person to death while carrying a pistol in his pocket, then you'd obviously ban the pistol, because it's mere presence obviously drove the fisherman to perform in such a manner.

    After the pistol is banned, we (the government; we're here to help) will then mandate safety regulations and oversight committees to ensure that fishermen (I mean fisherpersons) will be protected from their own propensity to harm fish and other peaceful creatures.

    Fishing rod registration and waiting periods will be implemented. After all, we're just looking out for you.

  • ||

    I believe the PC term is "fisher."

  • Scarcity||

    In other words, I could probably be more vigilant about protecting my privacy and avoiding giving the government a reason to pay attention to me. But I'm sure as shit not gonna go sign up for the watch list.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Kleck, who has done extensive research on the topic, says it is "quite reasonable to expect that thousands of lives are saved by defensive gun use by persons who carried guns in public places."

    Even though there is not evidence? I am always impressed with how bad the thinking is on both sides of this issue. Empirically concealed carry seems to have no effect on violent crime rates. So the issue is one that needs to be decided on other grounds.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Actually there is evidence. There have been several studies done, with Kleck's research being the one most cited by the pro-gun side.

    But there was a study done - I'm trying to remember, but I'm thinking it was a joint study done by the CDC and FBI, or something - I'm going to have to dig and find it. But the point is it was done by federal government agencies during the CLINTON presidency, of all things - which pretty much was the most anti-gun administration in the history of the U.S. up to that point. And even the data from that study indicated a reasonable conclusion that guns were used defensively about 8 or 9 times more frequently every year than they were used to commit crimes.

    About 6 years ago, I spent a bunch of time reading all the studies and reports I could find about this issue. I'll have to revisit all that to refresh my memory, but as I recall, the estimates of how many defensive uses of firearms occur in the U.S. every year ranged from something like 100,000 to Kleck's 2 million.

  • Neu Mejican||

    I have looked at the research. It is dominated by "wild-assed-guess" measures.

    My point is that there is not reason to care. The empirical arguments are a distraction.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Oh yeah, I totally agree that although we can play with statistics to bolster the reasoning in favor of the argument, they are not at all the deciding factor.

    Just because some people cannot be trusted with certain potentially dangerous devices doesn't mean the government should rightfully have the power to take them away from me.

  • Trespassers W||

    I have to agree. The right to self-defense isn't predicated on its effect on crime, beneficial or baleful.

  • ||

    The relevant research consists of extrapolations from national surveys. To characterize it as wild-assed guesswork is to characterize virtually all polling, which uses substantially similar methodologies, as wild-assed guesswork.

    Needless to say, such a characterization is entirely unsupportable, and amounts publicly announcing that you're fucking retarded.

  • Apogee||

    It is dominated by "wild-assed-guess" measures.

    Also, the positive or negative direction of reporting could possibly depend on the fact that the use of a gun to commit crimes is reported (a body, a wounding, etc.), whereas brandishing may be under-reported due to the lack of an actual crime.

    For example, a woman brandishing a firearm at an unarmed person whom she feels is threatening her may end up with criminal charges precisely due to her ability to prevent the attack that would provide the evidence of a threat.

    Ultimately, Trespassers is correct: My and others self defense doesn't depend on whether other people commit criminal acts.

  • PETA fanatic||

    "If a fisherman kills someone, do we ban fishing rods?"

    Yes! Save the sea kittens!!

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Applying the gun banner's logic ("if it saves just one life!"), then the issue must be decided solely by math. If we can show that X number of permitted concealed carriers used their legally-carried, permitted handgun to shoot someone wrongfully, then concealed carry should not be allowed to anyone.

    So let's apply that same logic to licensed drivers. Do you know how many licensed drivers kill and maim people every year? And yet they were given state licenses!!

    Of course, let's ignore all the people who drive illegally - either without licenses or suspended or revoked licenses, or who drive drunk...

  • Matrix||

    But if concealed carry permits save thousands of lives (which they do), then what about the one life saved by banning them? Is that one life of greater import than the thousands of others?

  • VPC||

    But the lives that are saved are mostly gun nuts! Gun nuts aren't people!

  • Matrix||

    and neither are people who hate liberty and freedom.

  • ||

    Wrong; people who hate liberty and freedom are OK if they're leftists as well.

  • ||

    Of course it has nothing to do with that. It's all about people who don't like guns, don't want you to have them, (cops ok), and think they have a right to force you to live like they want you to.

  • ||

    And to enforce their wishes, who comes after you? Men with guns.

  • LarryA||

    Hence the description of gun-control folks as "pacifist-aggressives."

  • ||

    THIS^ is the heart of the matter. Gun possession is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution. Driving a car is not. Yet the hoops one has to jump through to own a gun (legally) are exponentially more difficult than what it takes to get a driver's license.

    There's just no common sense with these people. Products of the public school system, I suppose.

  • Matrix||

    We should not even stop with CCWP. There are several states that allow open carry WITHOUT a permit. This should be the standard everywhere. Then a perp won't even have to guess if a person is packing or not. He'll just stay away.

    I like the statement above from a trucker, "The second ammendment is my permit." The Truth! Open carry or concealed carry... permissive without permits. It should be standard everywhere, here in the US and abroad.

  • db||

    I have to disagree with you here. Carrying openly poses additional risk to the person carrying. I carry concealed on a daily basis knowing that I don't have to be concerned about everyone I bump into possibly being a gun thief. If you've ever looked closely at a police handgun holster, you'll know that they have at least three safety devices to prevent snatching of the gun. They are also cumbersome to use and bulky. I prefer being the onpy one who knows I'm armed because I have to worry less about some opportunistic fool taking my gun. While I maintain good situational awareness, there are simply times when one can't keep track of the trajectory of everyone in the area.

    While open carry may have some deterrent effect on unarmed criminals or those that only plan on using their weapons as threatening props, an attacker that doesn't care about murder can simply decide to shoot any open carriers first.

  • Jim||

    That's good reasoning, but why should there be a law mandating that we all behave that way? I agree with your logic, but what Matrix was saying was that open carry should be allowed, not mandated. If people want to take the risk of open-carry, then they should be allowed to do so.

  • db||

    I agree there should be no rule against it, but I think it's inadvisable to do it most of the time, and way more inconvenient than concealment.

  • db||

    I live in PA, where open carry is allowed, but most people who do it are trying to make some kind of point. Sometimes it's a good point, like "see, regular people carry guns and it's not dangerous" and sometimes it's a bad point, like "look at me, I'm way radical and you can't stop me." I understand that people want to do it as a type of political speech, but most of the time those people make me pretty uncomfortable. I have a friend who has attended some "open carry" nights out and he stopped going because some of the folks were actually handling their guns in a restaurant, and not in a safe way. Regardless of whether it was done safely, you can imagine the reaction among the other patrons.

  • Matrix||

    But concealed requires it being completely unrecognizable. So it can't even be bulging in your clothing. No one should be able to distinguish what you are carrying, if anything. It is a little too much to be required. But I think it can be put under the clothes. Even if you can sort of make out what they are carrying, it is still somewhat concealed.

  • db||

    Not sure what you mean by "completely unrecognizable."
    You really have to know what to look for. So many people carry phones and other electronic gadgets on their belts anymore that just about everyone has some sort of weird bulge along the waistline. I have friends who know I carry and they cant tell when i ak or am not carrying, and vice versa. It is really not as hard as you think to conceal a weapon. I have never had a police officer ask me if i was carrying even if I had a belt bulge.
    (PA is a state that does not require you to aperture police officers if you are carrying, unlike others such as OH.)

  • db||

    Aperture s/b alert.

  • DLM||

    Carrying openly poses additional risk to the person carrying.

    And we can't have people choosing for themselves what risks they are willing to take.

  • db||

    Which would mean something if you hadn't misinterpreted my point.

  • db||

    Sorry, didn't mean to,be snippy there, just thought I had already addressed this point, which matrix made before you did.

  • GroundTruth||

    "Lies, damned lies and statistics" --- Violence Prevention Center

    Or, as I've heard it phrased: "Don't bother me with facts, my mind is made up".

    Face it folks, the gun control crowd has no interest in either truth, or the Constitution, only in making sure that no one can defend himself. The debate part is pointless, let's get to the vote see who carries the day.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Face it folks, the gun control crowd has no interest in either truth, or the Constitution, only in making sure that no one can defend himself. The debate part is pointless, let's get to the vote see who carries the day.


    The only campaign that exceeds them in sheer dishonesty and invincible ignorance is the Holocaust denial campaign.

  • ||

    If gun control opponents believe in “the right of law-abiding adults to protect themselves against crime” then the statistic to look at would be those events where law-abiding adults protected themselves against crime. But you did not list that.
    The real issue the Tuscon shooting illustrates is that now law-abiding adults with guns can go looking for trouble. Mr. Zamudio, who went to the scene and almost shot innocent people, is proud of his readiness to kill and “lay you down”. So no longer is it a homeowner who wants to protect his property but some untrained, non-uniformed guy who thinks he is a hero.
    In this respect, Zamudio is not too different from Loughner, the actual killer.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    For us libertarians the difference between actually shooting innocent people and not actually shooting innocent people is pretty important. That's why we are better than you.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    If gun control opponents believe in “the right of law-abiding adults to protect themselves against crime” then the statistic to look at would be those events where law-abiding adults protected themselves against crime. But you did not list that.

    You evidently have not read the comments upthread. As I stated above:

    [a study] was done by federal government agencies during the CLINTON presidency, of all things - which pretty much was the most anti-gun administration in the history of the U.S. up to that point. And even the data from that study indicated a reasonable conclusion that guns were used defensively about 8 or 9 times more frequently every year than they were used to commit crimes.

    About 6 years ago, I spent a bunch of time reading all the studies and reports I could find about this issue. I'll have to revisit all that to refresh my memory, but as I recall, the estimates of how many defensive uses of firearms occur in the U.S. every year ranged from something like 100,000 to Kleck's 2 million.

    And again, as discussed upthread, the debate is not answered merely by statistics. We all know Mark Twain's infamous quip that there are three types of lies: "Lies, damnable lies, and statistics."

    Probably the biggest problem in attempting to substantiate the number of times that guns are used defensively is that the majority of such cases are either unreported or undocumented or both. Who goes around collecting that data? Police collect crime data, based on reports. The reported rates of crime by and large are estimates, taking into account the possibility of unreported crimes. But nobody maintains reports of non-crimes.

    Think about it - scenario: guy is leaving his office after working late. He's walking through the dark parking garage towards his car. Three teenagers with nothing better to do head over to him shouting crap at him and making vague threats and gestures. As they get closer, they make the threats more overt and tell him they're gonna kick his ass. He pulls back his jacket and reveals his legally-carried handgun and says, "That wouldn't be a good idea, guys." Because they're just a bunch of young punks, they back off. The goes home and tells his wife, but he likely isn't going to bother reporting it to the police - because what would they do about it anyway?

    Quite often simply producing a gun in defense might be enough to head off an attack, and cause the attacker to head off.

    I actually used to know a women who was going in to work one early morning and as she was heading towards the back door of the building, a car pulled up and a guy got out and started walking towards her very quickly and purposely. She turned around and the guy looked like bad news, so she pulled out her gun from her purse and said, "get back!"

    The dude bolted back to his car and took off. She reported it to the police, but that' as far as it went. She didn't get a license plate, so what are they supposed to do? Who is going to dig that report out of their records and add it to the compilation of statistics of defensive uses of handguns?

    And you characterization of the CHP holder in Arizona is misplaced. He did not "go looking for trouble" - certainly not in the sense that a gun-totin' street thug does. He happened to be present in a situation in which trouble had come and found him. And yeah, as you say, he "ALMOST" shot innocent people. In fact, he showed excellent judgment and did not fire at anyone until he knew what was going on. More than one could say for certain cops, who have shot and killed innocent people or people who were presenting no threat at the time. Seems to me to be a good story with a good ending - at least as far as that particular gun owner (I obviously don't mean Loughner's shootings are a good story, so don't go there). He was prepared to defend himself and others, exercised good judgment, and never fired a shot.

    But again, when studies have been done, attempting to put a number on it, the conclusions consistently have been that the legitimate defensive uses of handguns to prevent crime far outnumber the instances in which guns were used to successfully complete the commission of a crime.

  • Matrix||

    Don't bring sane rational points and data to this conversation. The Gun Control Lobby only uses emotionalism, conjecture, and postulation to make their points.

  • DVC||

    Not true.

    They also use LIES. And plenty of them.

  • LarryA||

    Quite often simply producing a gun in defense might be enough to head off an attack, and cause the attacker to head off.

    Or even not producing one.

    I was headed home from work when a tire blew. On the overhead lane of the expressway. I finally got to a ramp, pulled down, and found a flat piece of concrete. I got out and glanced around, noticing it’s not one of the best sections of town. And this late in the day the area was deserted.

    As I inspected the tire a pickup slowed down. There were two big gang-bangers inside. They gave me the eye.

    Just before the truck stopped the guy in the passenger seat pointed to my “I’m the NRA and I Vote” bumper sticker, and said something involving an expletive. The driver accelerated and they left.

    I suppose they could have just been anti-gun, but...

  • Progressive||

    As I inspected the tire a pickup slowed down. There were two big gang-bangers economically repressed minorities inside. They gave me the eye were seeing if I could help alleviate some of their economic woes by relieving me of cash.

    FIFY

  • Trespassers W||

    Mr. Zamudio, who went to the scene and almost shot innocent people

    But, um, didn't, because it wasn't safe to do so? I know, totally like Loughner.

  • ||

    As I seem to recall from media reporting; Mr Zamudio did not fire because he was not sure he could do so without hitting another non-involved citizen. Mr. Zamudio realized, as do most serious armed civilians, bullets will penetrate through the intended target; in a crowded environment, collateral damage would not be acceptable.

    That is called responsiblity and accountablility. It is one of the traits of most armed citizens.

  • The Fringe Economist||

    I'm seriously thinking about moving to Florida. In CA we have some of the highest taxes and worst gun control laws.

  • DVC||

    Try Arizona. No permit required for OC or CC.

  • ||

    Gun control is a very stark example of projection. When someone argues that people don't have enough self control to have a gun, it will lead to, typical example, shoot outs over fender benders, they are looking in a mirror.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Gun control is a very stark example of projection. When someone argues that people don't have enough self control to have a gun, it will lead to, typical example, shoot outs over fender benders, they are looking in a mirror.


    It is a good things cops oppose gun control.

    They would never have shoot outs over fender benders.

  • ||

    Concealed carry is NOT the only way to carry, and self defense does not legitimately require ANY government "permit."

  • VeggieRonin||

    http://works.bepress.com/david_kopel/34/
    All the way down the slippery slope- gun prohibition in england and lessons for civil liberties in america

    Totally changed my views on 'reasonable restrictions'. Great response to those on the anti-gun side who think only whackos would oppose "sensible gun restrictions".

  • ||

    statistically speaking, there are few more reliable indicators that a person is law abiding in general, than that they have a CCW. that's fact, not opinion

    NONE of the predictions of the anti-gunners have come true in regards to states switching to "shall issue". NONE. there has not been carnage in the streets, and in fact - despite the increased incidents of legal carry (due to liberalization of laws) and ownership of firearms, crime in general and violent crime in specific has been dropping for decades.

    anecdotally, in 20+ yrs of law enforcement, i have never responded to a CCW'er committing a crime with his firearm, whereas i have responded to numerous incidents where they have lawfully defended themselves (almost never having to fire) and scores more of incidents where they didn't even draw or display same firearm, instead exercising a lot of restraint

    the current uproar over allowing ccw on campuses (college) in states that don't currently allow it - NEVER mention that in states that do allow it (like my own), there is NO evidence of increased violence or crime associated with same.

    the anti-gunners dont have facts on their side. constitutional issues aside, from a policy angle, they are also wrong

  • ||

    We don't need an argument of utility to oppose laws which would ban or limit our right to carry weapons. It's a Constitutional right and is self-enforcing and requires no justification. Not good enough for ya? I have a right which inheres in me as an individual, arising from my humanity, to bear arms and use deadly force when - in my sole discretion - it is necessary to do so. Can I be sued for damages if my discretion is wrong? You bet. Charged with a crime? Likewise. Banned from having the weapon in the first place? No. That, gentlemen, ladies and all you who are wondering about that, is called arguing from principle. All the rest of this discussion about justification and rationales and utility and all that is just crap.

  • ||

    they are two seperate arguments

    1) is gun control a good policy?
    2) is gun control constitutional?

    discussing issue #1 doesn't change the fact that the answer to #2 is ... NO

  • ||

    The NRA, through its lapdogs in state legislatures, has effectively outlawed the collection of statistics about the criminal use of firearms by permit holders. So the statement that such crimes are extremely rare is false.

  • ||

    A statement posted does not equal a true statement. Since marcus accuses the states of not being able to track statistics from CCW holders lets see some back up... some cite that proves his point.

    But he can't. He is just emoting... letting his emotions run away with his fingers. It sounds good to him... it makes him feel warm and fuzzy inside... so out it comes and into the post.

    It's the same type of person who complains about the way unicorns are being mistreated down at the local circus.

  • Barely Suppressed Rage||

    Cite needed.

    You're full o' shit.

  • H||

    The fishing pole arguement reminds me of a friend who said he didn't like guns because he had a friend killed in a hunting accident. Duck hunting. He fell out of the boat and drowned. True story. Yes, he is kinda stupid.

  • ||

    Ducks don't kill people; drinking beer at 4:00 AM and breathing water does.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Radley Balko wrote about violence, government violence, and anti-government rhetoric .

    Somehow the government is not too eager to disarm itself.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    People who supported anti-bigamy laws did not claim police officers should be able to marry more than one person at a time.

    People who supported Prohibition did not claim police officers should be able to drink alcohol on or off the job.

    People who support bans on heroin do not claim police officers should be able to shoot heroin on or off the job.

    People who support bans on same-sex "marriage" do not claim police officers should be able to marry someone of the same sex.

    So why do people who support handgun bans want to exempt the very people trusted to enforce this law? Is this not hypocrisy?

  • ||

    Gun control laws are more about the Progressives "Ruling" without fear that they will be opposed. "Governors" are those who can build consensus for their ideas rather than using the brute (armed) power of the Stage to force subjugation.

    Those who follow on to the philosophy of disarming the public also have the idea that actions/behaviors do not have consequences and we should not be held accountable for them.

    A tyrant's greatest enemy; the arms of a free people.

  • ConfederalRepublicBy2030||

    I'm wondering how long it'll take before the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968, and its FOP extension in 1986 are repealed and declared abominations to the republic and the rule of law. Any guesses?

  • TT||

    Just use a weapon large enough such that a second shot isn't necessary.

  • Masshole||

    Ah, but miniguns are also almost flying pigs. 11 legally owned in the whole country, I believe.

  • ||

    WastingtonDC:
    In Florida, and hopefully soon, in most Red Constitutional Carry states, the Castle Doctrine is coming into popular use, as criminals learn fast and hard, to do violent crimes in Blue States, where the pickings are easy, and their victims are certain to be disarmed. The following is a direct quote, cut and pasted from the NRAs Map of state gun laws. Look there when you choose your new work place, or retirement homes to avoid unconstitutional blue states, and violent crime.

    "Under Florida law, there is no “duty to retreat” if you are attacked in any place you have a lawful right to be. Instead, you may stand your ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is
    necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others."

    Thanks to half dozen open and or concealed carry states, Alaska, and others where no permit has ever been allowed or required, we will soon see individual liberty assured. Constitutional Carry is that inherant human right to keep and bear arms, any arms, anywhere, that the human considers necessary for self defense, or defense of his family, property, friends, or innocent bystanders, without the slightest infringement by local, state, federal or now, foreign jurisdictions intent on stopping US style individual liberty from spreading, as in the ongoing Arab Spring.

  • ||

    I find it humorous that the gun control left has failed to look at the laws of Vermont where, crime is low and nearly any citizen, (with the exception of convicted felons) can carry a concealed firearm sans licensing. Exceptions: It is illegal to carry a gun on school property or in a courthouse.

    "The truth stares them in the eye and it blinds them."

  • mbt discount||

    like it

  • funny videos||

    Thanks for the post, I had been searching for information regarding this. Anyway, thanks for the great resource, hope others find what they're looking for here too.

  • xiingguan||

    This movie has some nike sb skunk dunks for sale of the same flaws I saw in another attempt at a faithful adaptation of a work of fantastic literature long thought unfilmable, Zach Snyder’s 2009 version of Watchmen...That is, it kobe 7 for sale struck me as a series of filmed recreations of scenes from the famous novel

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement